Politics

[Lithium]

I really enjoy how the libs/dems posting in this topic *completely* switch topics as soon as the counter-points are made to debunk their arguments.

Anywho, if you post something publicly on a social network site you deserve to have it swiped if you are threatening the safety of others. If you are looking for consistency with wiretapping phone laws, then yes, real-time private 'data' (email, private messages, etc.) should require a court order before the government 'hacks' and/or asks a 3rd party for that data. However, I am not terribly familiar with 'tapping' laws and it's not unusual for these articles to be extremely misleading.

[likwidtek]

If I send you a private message via email, facebook, this website or whatever... There is a reasonable expectation of privacy that the government or law enforcement cannot and should not be able to view this information without a warrant.  

The government or law enforcement has the power to surveil American citizens without a warrant and that is not ok.  It's not ok for the government to put a camera in my home, or put audio recording devices in my home.  It sure as shit isn't ok for them to go through my private messages.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[Sared]

Although I completely agree that warantless surveillance is an invasion of privacy that I do not support, I think the numbers on the article are important to put into context.

According to that article, the JD made 1661 "live intercepts on social networks and e-mail providers in 2011". That's out of millions of such exchanges that happen every single day, and is really a very small number. Doesn't make it any better or justified, and I'm hopeful that this incursion into privacy is fixed before it gets any worse, but I also think it's a mountain made out of a molehill by the press.

[likwidtek]

Some more to think about:  http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

"National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance"

[Broin]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57521680-38/feds-snoop-on-social-network-accounts-without-warrants/

Nothing to see here guys! Remember! Freedom isn't free! And hey, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to hide right! Privacy is only a word that terrorists use to thwart the freedom machine.

LOL you do understand the concept of SOCIAL MEDIA... Correct?

I mean if you are going to put shit out there into the ether and not expect it to come back and haunt you or not to be found out then you are crazy.  

I mean that's like sending out a text to a few hundred friends and then askign them hey make sure you don't pass this on.

Oh and I do this on a regular basis with my guys... AND it keeps you safe and puts lots of bad people in jail.

I also regulary get Verizon, AT&T, etc., to ping cell phones to track people down and see where they are staying, moving around and visiting, etc.,   Another awesome tool...

Oh and Democracy Now = Funded almost entirley by George Soros... What a guy.  Yeah I'm buying what they say.  Like a spoonful fo shattered glass.

[NoCry]

Never understood the drama on supposed loss of privacy. There can be no expectation of privacy/ secrecy if you use public channels or networks (which of course the Internet is even Pam's etc).

If you have nothing to hide who cares who reads your sordid little fantasies?

The only people who benefit from any privacy laws are terrorists - sometimes I am amazed when I hear what an outcry there is from the US on this issue - you guys know right that half the world (probably more so in terms of population) does not like you vey much - why not have the tools to protect? The tools certainly are not there to oppress.

[Sared]

The only people who benefit from any privacy laws are terrorists...

And...you know...people that don't want to live in a totalitarian socialist state, right?

[NoCry]

What is more important though? Security or privacy?

[likwidtek]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Lithium]

It requires a balance.

On one hand you have American's sceaming when it takes 20 years to take down a corrupt business figure. Or when someone like Casey Anothey gets off scottfree. Or how a drunk doctor kills a teenage girl while driving and gets off with 1 year in jail for DWI all other charges dropped.

Yet, on the other hand those same people demand more privacy rights. Which only helps the defendents in those cases. The constitution protects really just your home. The government can't bust in without just cause. The governement can't barracks troops in your house. I'm not positive but I really doubt there is any mention of 'privacy'.

The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).

Wireless communication is one of those things where if the company you trust your data with gives it up... they give it up. They have every right to say NO to the governement.

[Broin]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I totally get you on this one Likwid

[Tbone]

I want the new ObamaPhone!

[Da6onet]

This is why I listen to both WAMU and WMAL, they don't always cover the same stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=1

Enjoy.

[Lithium]

I've been saying it for years that the next big bubble will be student loan debt:

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/student-loan-default-rates-rise-as-federal-scrutiny-grows-1.4055191

The default rate on student loans is now above 10%. To put that in perspective with mortgages, before the collapse only about 2% were delinquent on their house. During the collapse it was as high as 20%. Right now it's around 7% I believe.

Also, most people don't know this but student loans were rewritten in the healthcare law and a significant portion of the program is funded by the 'expected' revenue of student loan interest. Of course the law also 'expceted' that unemployment right now would be at 4%. So the orginal phoney CBO costs were off by at least half.

[Da6onet]

It will be interesting to see how the country/world adapts to deal with an entire generation of unemployed/underemployed college grads with stupid amounts of debt. I fear nothing is going to change until it blows up in everyone's face.

There is hope though, I hear comments like this more often these days: "I'm starting to think it's Obama's fault I can't get a job. When Bush was in office (before my degree) I was able to get jobs with ease.